Council archive · source document
001A333D.001
Text sections not matched to the original PDF pages. See original document to check page numbers.
Paice
RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST Fach -
is not
inconsistent ‘
with the ,
standards
mentioned — in
paragraphs
(a) to (c).
$06.1 A sign’ erected or | PS6.1 A sign erected or | PS6.1 Strand Gardens
otherwise placed in otherwise placed in submits no signage is
position for position for prescribed proposed.
prescribed tidal work, tidal work, other than
other than a_ sign a sign erected or
erected or placed for placed for safety
safety reasons or reasons or under an
O under an Act— Act, is consistent
(a) is compatible with with ne _ folowing .
the character and .
amenity of the (a) subject to
work's immediate paragraph (c),
surroundings and a sign erected
the locality within or placed in
which the work position for
is located; and identifying
{b) is not a dominant presonbed tidal
feature of the work, or the
owner of the
work, unless the ;
: - work, is the
dominance is for . as
only sign . |
safety reasons erected or
placed in
position for _
identifying the
work or owner; ,
O {b) subject to
paragraph (c),
a sign erected
or otherwise
placed in
position for
prescribed _ tidal ‘
work is :
integrated into J
oy the design and
oo construction of
the work;
(c) if a relevant
a planning
scheme
standard is more
stingent — than
the standard
mentioned in ,
: os oe. ." + wo Page 14 a
emanate - Response to Information Request” 9 mo,
LEGAL oof : Boga COSee the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalUsed in these records
001A333D.001.pdfRelated documentPublic source context ↗
08/1704 - Response to Information Request [As Published]Related documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 7.8 MB (large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.